It really is the song that does not end

[rbstewart7263]

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/17/Exposed-the-secret-mailing-list-of-the-gaming-journalism-elite

Im really surprised this came up today and im glad that it did. This is odd and disturbing to say the least. I mean I really expected for things to just sort of peter out involving gamergate but Im glad that this has come out. I dont even mind that they "show support" for zoe but colluding to censor news and debate is just plain wrong.

So escapees as always what are your thoughts?

 

[Thaluikhain]

This isn't censorship. They are free not to say things if they don't want to.

If someone doesn't want a personal matter publicised by the media, the media deciding not to publish it because of this is not censorship.

 

[DC_78]

Is breitbart not affiliated with this guy who prematurely claimed Anita did not contact the Police before he was done checking all the facts? If yes, why should I not wait for a decent news source to cover this then?

Same reporter. And the San Francisco police confirmed themselves that Anita did not contact them, but after review they found out she did contact the SFPD, who handed her over to the FBI. A bit of a miscommunication on the SFPD's part there not the reporter's fault.

That said he did tweet about it prematurely. And also retracted the tweet himself.

Edited for clarity:

This isn't censorship. They are free not to say things if they don't want to.

If someone doesn't want a personal matter publicised by the media, the media deciding not to publish it because of this is not censorship.

You seem confused in your statement. No one claimed that the media not reporting on the developer was censorship for that reason. They claimed that shutting down the public forum goer's threads and deleting comments was censorship. Even worse was pressuring other sites within the group to do the same that is censorship on a large scale. And please do not argue censorship can only be done by governments because that is not in the definition of the word.

Also the idea that they would "signal boost" this developer during this is rather.....odd.

 

[DC_78]

snipp

A public statement by the SFPD's public relations officer told him this. Then after further review the officer found out she did contact the SFPD, who handed her over to the FBI. Journalist retracts the tweet(Not article, personal tweet) and files for a Freedom of Information request with the FBI to get the full story.

Sounds more like a mistake that was corrected, and is now being fully investigated. You know #JournalisticIntegrety and shit like that. But to each their own opinion.

 

[Jux]

Is breitbart not affiliated with this guy who prematurely claimed Anita did not contact the Police before he was done checking all the facts? If yes, why should I not wait for a decent news source to cover this then?

Same reporter. And the San Francisco police confirmed themselves that Anita did not contact them, but after review they found out that she did contact the FBI. A bit of a miscommunication on the SFPD's part there not the reporter's fault.

That said he did tweet about it prematurely. And also retracted the tweet himself.

Specifically, she contacted the SFPD [http://gamergate.giz.moe/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/SFPD-follow-up-2.jpg], who handed her off to the fbi [http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/09/15/did-professional-sarkeesian-hater-davis-aurini-commit-felony-wire-fraud-hell-if-i-know-but-hes-definitely-an-unethical-dick/].

It's interesting though he hasn't made a retraction [http://www.staresattheworld.com/2014/09/anita-sarkeesian-fabricate-story-contacting-authorities/] in the post on his website, still prominently displayed on the front page. So much for journalism ethics. All hail NOD! All hail Kane!

Update: Got the wrong journalist on this one.

 

[DC_78]

Well, why did he start tweeting several times about this issue before the FOI request went through and he was done checking the bloody facts? I saw his correction tweet, it went under all the anti-"SJW" (ah, the new white-knight and boogeyman) tweets and his retweeting of a anti-feminist video by a right-wing source as if it had any bloody relevance.

I don't see why I should give a damn about this guy. Should a journalist not first check the facts before reporting (and in modern times tweeting about it is nearly the same) on a highly controversial issue, especially since his reports formed opinions that I will hear repeated over and over again.

Anti-femisnist video? The one by Cristina H. Sommers maybe? I do not follow twitter so I would not know besides the occasional link in the shitstorm thread.

Well as for "checking the facts" he did ask the "local authorities" as I believe Anita called them when she tweeted the incident out. I am positive he has asked her just like he has Zoe for statements. If they are refusing to coaburate their story with him what else can he do but ask the other neutral parties involved? So when you ask their public relations office for a case report and they say we never were contacted by Anita, that is not credible? It is not like he called the local precinct house and asked the sergeant on duty for a statement. It was the San Francisco PD's public relations guy.

They back tracked their statement to him after review they found out she did contact the SFPD, who handed her over to the FBI. Again do we not see their initial response as credible even if after their review they clarify it? I am just trying to see how you blame the reporter when the source was wrong. It is not like such things have not happened very often recently in media with the rather obnoxious inclusion of social media into the proffession.

 

[DC_78]

Is breitbart not affiliated with this guy who prematurely claimed Anita did not contact the Police before he was done checking all the facts? If yes, why should I not wait for a decent news source to cover this then?

Same reporter. And the San Francisco police confirmed themselves that Anita did not contact them, but after review they found out that she did contact the FBI. A bit of a miscommunication on the SFPD's part there not the reporter's fault.

That said he did tweet about it prematurely. And also retracted the tweet himself.

That is not the journalist. That is the anti-anita quack that wants to do a documentary about her. I would appreciate if you removed that post as it is discussing something else not related to the Breitbart article.

The journalist's name is Milo Yiannopoulos.

 

[Jux]

That is not the journalist.

Then which one are we talking about here, Milo? All the same, she did actually contact the SFPD.

Updated my post to reflect that, but the info showing she did contact the SFPD is staying up. Perhaps you'd like to edit your own post and correct that misinformation.

 

[DC_78]

That is not the journalist.

Then which one are we talking about here, Milo? All the same, she did actually contact the SFPD.

Be nice if you actually read the article to be able to contribute fully to the conversation Jux as I appreciate your ideas.

And yes Milo is a journalist the other two....opportunists in that WeHunttheMammoth article are just....well they are not anyone I believe should be associated with this thread. I personally do not appreciate their attempt to co-op the shitstorm this has become for their own ends.

 

[Jux]

That is not the journalist.

Then which one are we talking about here, Milo? All the same, she did actually contact the SFPD.

Be nice if you actually read the article to be able to contribute fully to the conversation Jux as I appreciate your ideas.

And yes Milo is a journalist the other two....opportunists in that WeHunttheMammoth article are just....well they are not anyone I believe should be associated with this thread. I personally do not appreciate their attempt to co-op the shitstorm this has become for their own ends.

I did read the article, but it's 4 in the morning and I'm going on 20 hours here. I already made my correction. Be nice if you didn't make assumptions about what I did and didn't do, thanks.

 

[DC_78]

That is not the journalist.

Then which one are we talking about here, Milo? All the same, she did actually contact the SFPD.

Be nice if you actually read the article to be able to contribute fully to the conversation Jux as I appreciate your ideas.

And yes Milo is a journalist the other two....opportunists in that WeHunttheMammoth article are just....well they are not anyone I believe should be associated with this thread. I personally do not appreciate their attempt to co-op the shitstorm this has become for their own ends.

I did read the article, but it's 4 in the morning and I'm going on 20 hours here. I already made my correction. Be nice if you didn't make assumptions about what I did and didn't do, thanks.

My apologies if I made an assumption or seemed rude. Sleep can befuddle anyone and I look forward to your take on the implications of media sites working together both good and bad. Good night.

 

[Jux]

My apologies if I made an assumption or seemed rude. Sleep can befuddle anyone and I look forward to your take on the implications of media sites working together both good and bad. Good night.

It's fine, I'm being snippy too, so no hard feelings here. It's a pain in the ass sometimes seperating my utter disgust for the gamergate movement as a whole from individual people sometimes.

On topic, I don't really see an issue with private mailing lists amoung industry insiders. There is a thread in R&P right now [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.860546-Objectivity] that has some discussion on the role of journalists (specifically about the nature of objectivity, but it was what sparked the thread), if you want more information on why I don't think using ones platform to reproach a particular sort of behavior is any big deal.

edit: I'll do a tl;dr for anyone that doesn't want to wade through my thread.

Everyone is pushing a narrative when they report on something. Whether it be using words like 'gruesome' to describe a murder scene, or 'shameful' to describe political corruption (subjective feeling adjectives), or even someone that tries to disassociate themself completely and simply report the facts as they see them, what facts they report is still pushing a particular narrative.

There are different approaches to journalism, but to me, if these guys honestly feel that this gamergate thing is harassment and has roots in sexism and misogyny, and they're against that, I find it both expected and reasonable that they would want to push back against it.

 

[DC_78]

On topic, I don't really see an issue with private mailing lists amoung industry insiders. There is a thread in R&P right now [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.860546-Objectivity] that has some discussion on the role of journalists (specifically about the nature of objectivity, but it was what sparked the thread), if you want more information on why I don't think using ones platform to reproach a particular sort of behavior is any big deal.

We agree there I do not see using your platform to reproach any topic as bad. And after the last week I have been surprised by my own lack of awareness in feminist ideology, so at this point I could not care less about criticism toward sexism in games. I may not agree, but the discussion is not as bad as some have made it into.

But I do have very real worries in the tone of the two exchanges. In the first use of this mess to give positive PR to Depression Quest, and in the second exchange in pressuring other sites to shutdown the conversation threads. Both are very troubling behavior to me.

 

[Madame_Lawliet]

"Secret mailing list of the gaming journalism elite?"
You Gamergaters just don't get it do you?

THERE IS NO GRAND CONSPIRACY TO "DIG UP," HERE.
Reality check: Professionals in ANY journalistic subdivision are going to have connections in their respective industries, that's called keeping professional circles, it's networking, it's BUSINESS.
If they don't want to disclose those PRIVATE connections and their PRIVATE mailing lists, then that is their own business and you have no right to call "censorship."

Dear goddess, why must you insist on there always being a "Shadowy man behind the curtain," or an "Illuminati pulling the strings?"
How long are you going to try and keep this "Gamergate" boat afloat before you realize how full of holes it is?

Oh and leave Zoe Quinn the fuck ALONE, and let this fake "controversy" END already.

 

[jklinders]

Source is only slightly less biased than Glen Beck. And if it was even possible, even more right wing. So I am not really comfortable with the editorializing in between those snippets they actually posted.

The snippets they posted were actually in my opinion showing a valid basis for not covering things. Doxxing is bad, no matter who does it and that behavior should not be rewarded with press. People parachuting into forums to only spam about "that one thing" probably don't want to be a part of that forum's community and are often just stirring shit. Still no one should be telling someone else how to run their site.

I'm not terribly surprised by the incestuous nature of the these journalists being revealed by this mailing list. I am slightly disappointed in the confirmation of it but this is no smoking gun. These sorts of things are often there so that they can fact check amongst themselves before going live. A lot of that communication that was released could be interpreted as just that. I have to try to see both sides as somewhat conveniently there are no complete email chains being shown, nor is there a source showing the full info dump. This cannot be spun as censorship. by definition, censorship is something that is undertaken by the government. These are private enterprises and are all free to report or not as they see fit.

I find it highly amusing to read an op-ed complaining about journalism being being spun to form a narrative that is essentially the same thing. sending out just enough to support their claims, talking about other bits that they did not send out and claiming that they are are somehow different because reasons. the narrative the writer is trying to spin is that these guys are all in some kind of virtual drawing room in smoking jackets sipping brandy and waxing philosophical about how to distort reality on this. What I'm seeing is a group of people in the same business trying to help each other not destroy their livelihoods over a jilted ex boyfriend stirring shit on the internet.

There is one overwhelming aspect of support for this though. The released emails were from before the whole gaming press closing ranks around each other and attacking gamers thing. that plays squarely into the narrative that this op-ed writer wants to spin. BUT, without the whole file, I refuse to trust that I am not being manipulated by some right wing hack who may or may not have a shrine to Sarah Palin in his bedroom (based on several of the adverts and linked articles on that page).

On a different note, something about brietbart makes my PC churn so hard it sounds like it wants to set itself on fire. Another reason not to go there again.

 

[Thaluikhain]

This isn't censorship. They are free not to say things if they don't want to.

If someone doesn't want a personal matter publicised by the media, the media deciding not to publish it because of this is not censorship.

Actually that's the definition of censorship, whether its good or bad.

Hey? Censorship requires some external group deciding what can and cannot be said, such as a government or other influential body.

If people decide amongst themselves not to say something, that's very different from being forced not to say something.